About the Authors

The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

"Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Several
recent posts and commentaries have suggested that the analysis from our recent
paper, "Pervasive Sequence
Patents Cover the Entire Human Genome," was mistaken or did not embody
an accurate characterization of the claims' construction. I would like to comment on several aspects of
the posts from both Holman's
Biotech IP Blog and the Patent Docs blog, but foremost I would like
to thank both sites for their dialogue and debate on this important issue.

1) In his post, Prof. Holman
states "the authors seem to assume that every patent with a claim
mentioning a gene sequence also claims every 15mer present in the sequence,
i.e., every contiguous 15 nucleotide sequence appearing in the gene."

We
do not. We performed two distinct analyses
that were described in the main text. First, we examined the uniqueness of 15mers in general, which was shown
to be exceedingly non-unique genome-wide (no gene is unique at the 15mer level). Secondly, we used patents that claimed 15mer
sequences in their construction, and we indicated the matches we could find
given their sequence composition. From
these, we found many exact matches, ranging from 4% (for BRCA1) to potentially
as high 91%.

2) Prof. Holman
continues, "In my experience, claims of this type are extremely rare. I
looked at [a] hundred patents identified as gene patents in the Jensen Murray study
and found that most only claim the full-length gene sequence. . . . I looked
through hundreds of gene patents trying to find another 15mer claim analogous
to those in the Myriad patents and could not find one. The patent claims at
issue in the Myriad case will be expiring within the next few years. . . . I doubt
that this sort of broad 15mer claim has been issued by the patent office in recent
years, or if it has it seems to be extremely rare."

After
searching for a short time on Google Patents, I was able to find two potential examples
of recently published patent applications that directly claim a large subset of genes.

"In
some embodiments, the therapeutic product is a polynucleotide, while in other
embodiments, the therapeutic product is a polypeptide. In some embodiments, the
polynucleotide is a DNA molecule, which can comprise the full-length coding
region for a protein, the coding region for a domain of a protein, or a coding
region for a protein fragment, which is shorter than a recognized and
identified domain of a protein. Thus, the polynucleotides disclosed herein can
range from oligomers of at least 15 base pairs in length to DNA molecule
comprising the full-length coding region for a protein."

This patent application refers to the
gene "GNE," which allows it to also claim 15mers. Given the thousands of nucleotides in this
patent application, it turns out that this patent application can cover 1,306 other genes, using the
same 15-mer matching algorithm.

US 20130041209 A1

Methods and compositions
for improved fertilization and embryonic survival

"An
isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide corresponding to a
nucleotide at a first polymorphic position selected from the group consisting
of positions 85146, 85161, 85216, 85292, and 85300 of the nucleic acid sequence
shown in FIG. 1 (SEQ ID NO: 1), and at least 10 contiguous nucleotides of SEQ
ID NO: 1 adjacent to the first polymorphic position, wherein position 85146 is
guanine, position 85161 is guanine, position 85216 is adenosine, position 85292
is cytosine, or position 85300 is guanine; or an isolated nucleic acid molecule
comprising a nucleotide corresponding to a nucleotide at a second polymorphic
position selected from the group consisting of positions 35728, 36016, and
38867 of the nucleic acid sequence shown in FIG. 2 (SEQ ID NO: 2), and at least
10 contiguous nucleotides of SEQ ID NO: 2 adjacent to the second polymorphic
position, wherein position 35728 is guanine, position 36016 is guanine, or
position 38867 is guanine.

2. A nucleic acid molecule
according to claim 1, which comprises at least 10, at least 11, at least 12, at
least 13, at least 14, or at least 15 contiguous bases of SEQ ID NO: 1 adjacent
to the first polymorphic position, or of SEQ ID NO: 2 adjacent to second
polymorphic position.

7. A nucleic acid molecule
according to claim 1, wherein the first or second polymorphic site is within 4
nucleotides of the center of the nucleic acid molecule.

8. A nucleic acid molecule
according to claim 7, wherein the first or second polymorphic site is at the
center of the nucleic acid molecule."

Notably, these are highly
polymorphic sites in the human genome, so if you look at any piece of DNA
anywhere near this gene, you will easily match the specified variants from this
gene, and then be entitled to any genes that are on the same fragment. From simple pipetting, this can be anywhere
from 10,000-100,000 bases.

3) Prof. Holman
then says, "DNA does not contain 2'-deoxy-2-fluoro pyrimidine nucleotides and
2'-deoxy purine nucleotides, these are synthetic analogues to the nucleotides
that appear in DNA."

This
is completely false. "2'-deoxy
purine nucleotides" are simply the "A" and "G" nucleotides
in normal DNA, and they indeed appear in normal DNA. Modifications of these bases are allowed in this
patent for "chemical variations" of RNA, even though (in this case)
they just turn RNA bases into DNA bases.

4) Prof. Holman
continues, "the authors reported that US7468248 contains 'explicit
claims for 15mers that matched 84% of human genes.' In fact, the '248
patent has only two independent claims, both of them method claims."

We
agree that these are method claims, but their specifications allow for a broad
interpretation. In particular, from the
patent:

"In
one embodiment, the present invention provides an isolated polynucleotide that
includes at least 20 contiguous nucleotides of any one of SEQ ID NOS:24493 to
64886, a polynucleotide at least 90% identical to the 20 contiguous nucleotide
fragment, or a complement thereof, wherein the isolated polynucleotide includes
a nucleotide occurrence of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associated
with a trait, wherein the SNP corresponds to position 300 of SEQ ID NOS:19473
to 21982."

5) Prof. Holman
then says, "the publication of the article highlights the limitations of
peer review (assuming Genome Medicine engages in peer review)."

The
publication of contentious research or discordant viewpoints does not
demonstrate a failure of the entire peer-review system. Rather, discussion and debate are key drivers
of scientific progress through these peer-reviewed publications. Five scientific reviewers and two patent
attorneys reviewed and approved our article before its publication, and the site
of the Journal clearly indicates that it conducts a thorough peer review. We also note that the journal is open-access,
allowing for easier dissemination of data and results, and that the Journal
hosts a large set of leading researchers on its Editorial Board.

1) Patent Docs
states that "the lone independent claim of the '422 patent is directed to
a "chemically modified" double-stranded nucleic acid molecule.
It is therefore difficult to see how the claimed sequences of the '422 patent
could "match[] 91.5% of human genes."

It
is notable that one of the claimed chemical modifications allowed from their
claims is "2′-deoxyribonucleotides," which is the same thing as
dexoyribonucleotides, or DNA ("Ribonucleotides versus Deoxyribonucleotides").

Also,
here is a listing of six other potential embodiments (of many) from this patent
that could easily cover unmodified bases or fragments thereof. The claims must be interpreted in plain
language first, of course, but also in light of their specifications of the
patent, which include:

1.1) In one embodiment, the invention features one or more chemically modified siNA
constructs having specificity for HIF1 expressing nucleic acid molecules, such
as RNA encoding a HIF1 protein. In one embodiment, the invention features a RNA
based siNA molecule (e.g., an siNA comprising 2′-OH nucleotides) having
specificity for HIF1 expressing nucleic acid molecules that includes one or more
chemical modifications described herein.

1.3) In another embodiment, the invention features a double-stranded short
interfering nucleic acid (siNA) molecule that down-regulates expression of a
HIF1 gene comprising an antisense region, wherein the antisense region
comprises a nucleotide sequence that is complementary to a nucleotide sequence
of the HIF1 gene or a portion thereof, and a sense region, wherein the sense
region comprises a nucleotide sequence substantially similar to the nucleotide
sequence of the HIF1 gene or a portion thereof. In one embodiment, the
antisense region and the sense region independently comprise about 15 to about 30
(e.g. about 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, or 30)
nucleotides, wherein the antisense region comprises about 15 to about 30 (e.g.
about 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, or 30)
nucleotides that are complementary to nucleotides of the sense region.

1.4) In one embodiment, an siNA molecule of the invention comprises no
ribonucleotides. In another embodiment, an siNA molecule of the invention
comprises ribonucleotides.

1.5) In one embodiment, the invention features a chemically synthesized
double-stranded RNA molecule that directs cleavage of a HIF1 RNA via RNA
interference, wherein each strand of said RNA molecule is about 15 to about 30
nucleotides in length; one strand of the RNA molecule comprises nucleotide
sequence having sufficient complementarity to the HIF1 RNA for the RNA molecule
to direct cleavage of the HIF1 RNA via RNA interference; and wherein at least
one strand of the RNA molecule optionally comprises one or more chemically
modified nucleotides described herein, such as without limitation
deoxynucleotides, 2′-O-methyl nucleotides, 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro nucleotides,
2′-O-methoxyethyl nucleotides etc.

1.6) In any of the above-described embodiments of a double-stranded short
interfering nucleic acid (siNA) molecule that inhibits expression of a HIF1
gene, wherein a majority of the pyrimidine nucleotides present in the
double-stranded siNA molecule comprises a sugar modification, each of the two
strands of the siNA molecule can comprise about 15 to about 30 or more (e.g.,
about 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, or 30 or
more) nucleotides.

2) Even
if you disagree with our analysis of the '422 patent, you can look at patent
8,273,866, which is in the
same family as 7,795,422.

Notably,
Claim 1 says:

"1. A short interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule having a sense strand and an antisense
strand that mediates RNA interference, wherein: (a)
each strand is between 18 and 24 nucleotides in length; (b)
the sense strand comprises 10 or more 2′-deoxy, 2′-O-methyl,
2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro, or universal base modified nucleotides, and a terminal cap
molecule at the 3′-end, the 5′-end, or both 3′ and 5′-ends of the sense strand; (c)
the antisense strand comprises 10 or more 2′-deoxy, 2′-O-methyl,
2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro, or universal base modified nucleotides; and (d)
10 or more pyrimidine nucleotides of the sense and antisense strand are
2′-deoxy, 2′-O-methyl or 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro nucleotides."

The
patent also specifies considerable flexibility for the terminal cap molecule,
stating "[t]he cap moiety can be an inverted deoxy abasic moiety, an
inverted deoxy thymidine moiety, or a thymidine moiety."

Again,
given that "2'deoxy nucleotides" and "a thymidine moiety"
are simply normal DNA bases, and that any sequence that is 18-24 bases can be
constructed from these claims, this may mean that every single 18-24mer is
potentially claimed by this patent.

3) Patent Docs
then says, "while the '248 patent recites oligonucleotides -- which
the specification states "[i]n certain aspects" can be "at least
15 nucleotides in length" -- it is difficult to see how the authors can
conclude that the '248 patent has "explicit claims for 15mers that matched
84% of human genes."

See
above for our further analysis on this point. Our main point is that 15mers from these patents match both human and
bovine genomes, and that claim construction becomes non-specific (even across
species) at these low k-mer sizes.

4) "In paragraph 10 of his
Declaration, Dr. Mason surprisingly states that "Claim #I and #2 of '282
are so broad that they can include up to 100% of the genes in the human genome."

I
made this point for two reasons:

4.1) The 55% homology is a very low threshold, and it allows matches to many other
genes, because "homology" and "identity" are not the same
thing in biology; homology allows for far more flexibility in the mismatches.

4.2) The Myriad patents claim any "isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides
of the DNA of claim 2," which was my focus. Notably, this is not the same as claiming 15 contiguous nucleotides. Most other gene patents I have found will
describe contiguous nucleotides,
which obviously limits their scope. But,
if we allow any 15 nucleotides, in any order, it is easy to match these
sequences to the entire genome and indeed every gene.

5) "As
with the '422 and '248 patents, Dr. Mason appears to be having some difficulty
ascertaining the subject matter that is actually encompassed by claims 1 and 2
of the '282 patent."

I
would agree, insofar as I am worried about the likely overly broad scope of
these claims. Since I risk liability
whenever I perform genetic testing on my own DNA, or the DNA from any of my
patients, I welcome the Supreme Court or the legal scholars to clarify the
issue. In the absence of a statutory
research exemption for infringement liability or some other guarantee, I am
restricted from researching thousands of genes for many years to come.

But,
if any lawyer is confident enough about the irrelevance of these patents that
he or she would be willing to state, in writing, the willingness to defend me
in Court and pay all legal fees or damages if I get sued, then I will happily
join you and start working again to develop new tests, tools, and algorithms to
ameliorate and eliminate human diseases.

Thank
you,

Christopher
Mason, Ph.D.

[Ed. At Dr. Mason's request, his response has been revised to indicate that US 20130030040 A1 and US 20130041209 A1 are published patent applications rather than patents as Dr. Mason stated in the original version of his response.]

Last week, President Obama announced
a new research initiative designed to advance our understanding of the human brain. It is hoped that the new initiative, dubbed the
BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing
Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative, will lead to new methods for treating,
curing, and preventing brain disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's
disease, autism, epilepsy, schizophrenia, depression, and traumatic brain
injury. The initiative, one of the
Administration's "Grand Challenges," aims to produce a dynamic
picture of the brain that will show how individual cells and complex neural
circuits interact in both time and space, thereby providing opportunities for
exploring exactly how the brain enables the human body to record, process, utilize,
store, and retrieve vast quantities of information.

In announcing the new
initiative, the Administration noted that despite recent advances in
neuroscience, the underlying causes of most neurological and psychiatric
conditions remain largely unknown, due to the vast complexity of the human
brain. According to the White House
release, significant breakthroughs in the treatment of neurological and
psychiatric disease will require a new generation of tools that enable
researchers to record signals from brain cells in much greater numbers and at
even faster speeds.

The new initiative is still
in the planning process, however, with a working group of the Advisory
Committee to the NIH Director having been formed to articulate the scientific
goals of the BRAIN initiative and develop a multi-year scientific plan for
achieving those goals. The working group
will produce an interim report by the fall of this year that will contain
specific recommendations on high priority investments for FY 2014, with a final
report to be delivered to the NIH Director in June 2014.

Beginning in FY 2014, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
and National Science Foundation (NSF) will provide some $100 million in funding
to support the initiative. DARPA's role
in the initiative will be to develop a new set of tools to capture and process
dynamic neural and synaptic activities, while the NSF will support research
spanning biology, the physical sciences, engineering, computer science, and the
social and behavioral sciences, and in particular, will develop molecular-scale
probes that can sense and record the activity of neural networks, work on
advances in "Big Data" that will be required to analyze the huge
amounts of information that will be generated, and aid in the understanding of
how thoughts, emotions, actions, and memories are represented in the brain. Private foundations, including the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, the Allen Institute for Brain Science, The Kavli
Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have also made
commitments to support the new initiative.

In seeking additional
support for the BRAIN initiative, the Administration noted that a previous
Grand Challenge, the Human Genome Project, demonstrated that ambitious research
projects can have a significant impact on the country's economy. With respect to the Human Genome Project, for
example, the Federal Government invested $3.8 billion in that initiative
between 1988 and 2003, producing an economic output of $796 billion, or a return
of $14 for every $1 invested (see
"Report Gauges Economic Impact of
Human Genome Project").